Absolutely not. The original word in the Declaration of Independence is unalienable. It has a very specific meaning.

In Jefferson's time, the words unalienable and inalienable were used interchangeably. Somewhere along the line, however, the word inalienable took on a different meaning.

""Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can consent to forfeit an inalienable right; you cannot forfeit an unalienable Right by consent

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

Unalienable Rights cannot be alienated (i.e. sold or transferred.)

To expand on the trolls who don't read what they quote:

"as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act."

Have no idea where you are going with that. My Rights follow me into all fifty states, so you're wrong about that.
......

When I said cross a border, I didn't mean the border between Arizona and New Mexico, try crossing into Mexico, and see if your rights follow you.
Try Saudi Arabia, see how many of your inalienable rights make it to Riyadh.

Quote:

And the underlying issue is, since many people do not understand that our system of jurisprudence was built on the presupposition that you have Rights that predate the Constitution and are above the law, we end up accepting tyranny on the installment plan.

If you mean "God Given Rights", that's a religious belief, from a practical point of view, is your imaginary friend going to defend your rights?

Rights, as a practical matter, need the rule of law to mean anything real, and a mechanism to enforce the rule of law to have practical value.
Rights are a social construct, however they arise, will of the people or a philosophical revelation, it's a social construct.

At some juncture secularists began muddying the waters as much as the courts did. They began using the term civil liberties. Check out this meaning:

"n. rights or freedoms given to the people by the First Amendment to the Constitution, by common law, or legislation, allowing the individual to be free to speak, think, assemble, organize, worship, or petition without government (or even private) interference or restraints. These liberties are protective in nature, while civil rights form a broader concept and include positive elements such as the right to use facilities, the right to an equal education, or the right to participate in government."

Now contrast that definition to the courts interpretation of absolute, natural, inherent, unalienable, God given Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

"It is important to understand that the Constitution does not create rights for anyone. It simply serves as a grant of power to, and a blueprint for, the structure of the federal government. The rights of the people existed before the founding of the United States. The Bill of Rights clarifies limits on the power of the federal government. It declares “We, the people, retain our rights,” and prescribes that the creation of the federal government in no way limits the sovereignty of the states except where specified."

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

It's clear in my mind. The government can grant you inalienable rights and civil liberties; however, your unalienable Rights are no dependent on the Constitution for their existence and they are above the law, consequently not subject to limitation. In the lawful / de jure / correct and constitutional meaning, the Bill of Rights does not give you anything you didn't already have.

When I said cross a border, I didn't mean the border between Arizona and New Mexico, try crossing into Mexico, and see if your rights follow you.
Try Saudi Arabia, see how many of your inalienable rights make it to Riyadh.

If you mean "God Given Rights", that's a religious belief, from a practical point of view, is your imaginary friend going to defend your rights?

Rights, as a practical matter, need the rule of law to mean anything real, and a mechanism to enforce the rule of law to have practical value.
Rights are a social construct, however they arise, will of the people or a philosophical revelation, it's a social construct.

I'll thank you not to attempt to hijack this thread. What the people of Mexico agree to with respect to their government has no bearing on what happens inside the United States.

Rights are NOT a social construct unless you are a heathen atheist. You want to be dirty, let's rock. The concept of Liberty is rooted in biblical principles and predate the Constitution.

If people resist unconstitutional authority in the proper manner, they most likely will succeed.

Absolutely not. The original word in the Declaration of Independence is unalienable. It has a very specific meaning.

In Jefferson's time, the words unalienable and inalienable were used interchangeably. Somewhere along the line, however, the word inalienable took on a different meaning.

""Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can consent to forfeit an inalienable right; you cannot forfeit an unalienable Right by consent

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

Unalienable Rights cannot be alienated (i.e. sold or transferred.)

To expand on the trolls who don't read what they quote:

"as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act."

The English language is complicated beyond all recognition, for instance why do gasoline trucks have inflammable when the simple world flammable explains it?

In Jefferson's time, the words unalienable and inalienable were used interchangeably. Somewhere along the line, however, the word inalienable took on a different meaning.

Unalienable is simply the English version of the word, while inalienable was the French version of the word.

Quote:

""Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights." Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can consent to forfeit an inalienable right; you cannot forfeit an unalienable Right by consent

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

Unalienable Rights cannot be alienated (i.e. sold or transferred.)

The changing of the words has no bearing on what the words mean when they were originally used and written in the DoI. They both mean the same thing.

Quote:

To expand on the trolls who don't read what they quote:

"as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act."

Maybe you should try comprehending what Washington stated, then try comprehending what I stated, once you put the two together you get the fact that your inalienable/unalienable, natural rights have been limited simply by you entering into society.

I'm still waiting for you to show what is wrong with my original comment: Some are natural, some were granted, all can be limited/taken.

{QUOTE=goober;1107027]You're right! inside the US our rights are based on our government, and that ends at the border. Rights aren't a universal truth, they are social constructs.}

RESPONSE: Buzz... WRONG. We covered all of this already. In International law, other countries, they too recognize absolute Rights. You should try reading the thread.

The Australian government, in defining INTERNATIONAL Rights, makes the definition abundantly and unequivocally clear:

"International human rights law recognises that few rights are absolute and reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms. Absolute rights, however, are distinguishable from non-absolute rights: see list in the box above.

Absolute rights cannot be limited for any reason. No circumstance justifies a qualification or limitation of absolute rights. Absolute rights cannot be suspended or restricted, even during a declared state of emergency."

The English language is complicated beyond all recognition, for instance why do gasoline trucks have inflammable when the simple world flammable explains it?

I'm with you. We had unalienable Rights, inalienable rights, civil rights, and government granted rights. Then you have fifty synonyms for the same words, with governments coming along changing the meanings of the synonymous terms (i.e. unalienable and inalienable.)

Atheists want to argue this idiocy about "social constructs" unable to admit that unalienable, natural, inherent, absolute, and God given are all synonymous. The words mean that the government cannot, constitutionally, limit those Rights.

Laymen inadvertently walk into the trap, thinking that they can adopt the language of those wanting to overthrow our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic. The problem is, legally, once you adopt their language, you get stuck with their definitions of the words.

America was built upon certain presuppositions. The presupposition is that America could be summed up in one word: Liberty. But, whose definition should we use to define it? Thomas Jefferson offered this:

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

When I looked into that, it became apparent that all of the men who helped form what would become our Constitution were white and influenced more by the Bible and Christian legal philosophers like John Locke and Issac Newton. One article had this to say about the founders:

"Whatever their beliefs, the Founders came from similar religious backgrounds. Most were Protestants. The largest number were raised in the three largest Christian traditions of colonial America—Anglicanism (as in the cases of John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge), Presbyterianism (as in the cases of Richard Stockton and the Rev. John Witherspoon), and Congregationalism (as in the cases of John Adams and Samuel Adams). Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed. Three Founders—Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania—were of Roman Catholic heritage."

It is no stretch of the imagination that the founders, at a personal level, all understood Liberty from the same basic perspective. Therefore, absolute meant exactly that and unalienable meant it was above the reach of government as well.

Having covered, that maybe if we can get past the trolls, I can conclude this. We can make the next point.